John the Baptist is a unique character. Yes, I know. His purpose was to “Make straight the path of the Lord.” This is only part of the story. Both Matthew and Luke contain an account that most of us simply read past after becoming a bit confused. It starts with John in prison wondering, “Is this Jesus guy the real thing or is there another coming after him?” One might ask: “How could he doubt?” He leaped for joy when Mary visited his mom before he was even born. When he baptized Jesus, he saw the Holy Spirit descend while the Father spoke from heaven. John openly declared: “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” He was quick to say: “I must decrease, and he must increase.” What happened?
How was it that this prophet, so specially anointed could doubt? Actually, the answer is not as difficult as it first seems. John saw the world through Old Testament perceptions. The God he envisioned intervened often, directly, and with power. He was the one who delivered the Israelites out of slavery “with a strong arm.” For thousands of years, that Exodus experience was indelibly implanted onto the consciousness of Jews everywhere. John hoped for and fully expected to see the long-awaited Davidic kingdom restored. Yet, here he was, languishing in jail, while Jesus seemed to be ineptly going here and there. He shut down efforts by the people to crown him king, and this caused his initial popularity to quickly fade as a result. Adding to the dilemma, the religious leaders were actively planning to arrest him, thereby cutting him down completely. I can imagine John thinking: “Maybe Jesus and I will share adjacent cells.” Everything apparently was falling apart. What could John do in light of this? He still had a strong following of disciples, and they regularly visited him in prison. They could go to Jesus and settle things once and for all. This they did, and when they asked Jesus to clarify, he answered:
Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. (Matt 11:4-5)
Jesus reminded John of the Old Testament prophecies that were being fulfilled. Then came one of the most profound and overlooked statements in the New Testament. “Blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” The characteristics of God known to John and the people of the time was incomplete. The Old Testament presentation had glimpses of the full reality, to be sure. It would take Jesus to complete, and in some ways overturn the picture. The following sampling of verses demonstrate this:
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (John 1:18).
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love (1 John 4:8).
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. (John 5:19)
These verses convey important information as to how we should interpret the difficult parts of the Old Testament. We can say emphatically: “Those passages that don’t mesh with what we know of Jesus are being read incorrectly.” The early church fathers knew this, which is why they resisted the strong temptation to simply disregard the pre-Christian scriptures. I’ll get back to this below, but for now, let’s continue our discussion about the Baptist. After John’s disciples left, Jesus continued to speak.
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matt 11:11)
John is the inflection point in history. He represents God’s covenantal relationship with Israel. As John must decrease, Christ must increase. The Old Covenant’s hope for a physical Davidic kingdom must decrease and the New Covenant’s assurance of God’s spiritual kingdom must increase. The Old Testament’s old wine perceptions of God were to be replaced with the new wine of a Christ-centric approach. As Christians then, how should we deal with the Old Testament? Three prerequisites are needed. The first: God the Father is always good, merciful, and forgiving. Without this firm foundation, we shouldn’t bother to even open the initial 39 books of the Bible. The second: God the Father is Love; all of his qualities are facets of this attribute. Even his wrath has the goal of purifying our spirits, not of retributive punishment. Third: God the Father is just like Jesus; as Jesus acts, so does the Father. Jesus came as the Great Physician, not as a vengeful judge.
The atheist Richard Dawkins claims that God as represented in the Old Testament is the “most unpleasant character in all fiction.” Obviously, Dawkins never considered the prerequisites that I listed above. Nevertheless, with this in mind let’s consider the Bible account that skeptics most frequently bring up to support their position. The passage follows:
And Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'” (1 Sam 15:1-3)
Those verses come across as inexplicably harsh, don’t they? How do we treat this passage? A typical explanation argues that the descendants of Amalek were so evil that destroying them would be just. God in his sovereignty knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, this is not what the passage says. The reason for the command to kill everything is clear. It is payback for Amalek’s behavior when the Israelites were leaving Egypt. Let’s examine this in modern terms.
During the Reformation period, Catholics and Protestants were at each other’s throats. There were numerous atrocities committed by both sides during decades of war. Does this mean that God could possibly remember this, and tell one side to kill all of the men, women, children, and animals of the other side’s descendants? Is this how Jesus might act? Obviously, the answer is no. There must be another explanation for this troubling biblical text that apparently commands genocide. We need to dig deeper. As I do this, I note discrepancies. First of all, God never sent Samuel to anoint Saul king, as he claims. Here is God’s version:
Tomorrow about this time I will send to you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over my people Israel. He shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines. For I have seen my people, because their cry has come to me. (1 Sam 9:16)
According to this verse, God chose Saul to be prince over the people, not king. Other translations use words like captain, ruler, rescuer, governor, or leader. Never do they use the word “king.” How does this relate? Samuel assumed that Saul was to be anointed king. Therefore, the anointing was his doing, not God’s. Later Samuel indicates that God regretted Saul being made king. It seems to me that he regretted Samuel’s action to appoint Saul to a position greater than what was intended. I wonder. If Samuel did not ordain Saul for more than he could manage, perhaps the later conflicts with David could have been avoided. It is something to consider. Consequences result from mistakes, not from God’s anger.
This doesn’t completely settle the issue, however. What do we do with the phrase: “Listen to the words of the Lord” used by Samuel to order the massacre? Where did those words come from? It is easy to assume that Samuel heard some kind of physical voice. For many years, this is what I would have thought. It is so easy to presume that God continually spoke directly to people in Bible times. This is a wrong presumption. The word of the Lord to which Samuel referred comes from the books of Moses.
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” (Ex. 17:14)
Moses decided to expand these words during his speech in the book of Deuteronomy
Therefore, when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.
In any case, the Amalekites must have been getting under Samuel’s skin. Why? Perhaps they were conducting ongoing terrorist raids. Who knows? Regardless, he was going to help God along. So, by referring to a couple of ancient, vague scriptures for justification, he ordered Saul to do the deed. Samuel was the perpetrator of the massacre, not God.
I have a bit more to say. Let’s see if we can give Samuel a bit of a break. Ancient writers frequently used hyperbole. We still do. If I say, the Yankees killed the Dodgers, no one would think that I was speaking literally. Can we know whether Samuel was using hyperbolic language? I think we can. How? Samuel later in the passage hacked king Agag to death, but left the livestock alone. He said to Agag: “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” But wait! I thought his mother was already dead. Apparently, the order to “kill all men, women, children, and livestock” was never fully carried out. The whole conflict seems to me to be a typical ancient clash of retaliation.
Conclusion
The Old Testament is a living, inspired book that is wonderfully complex and worthy of study. This being said, it is important to read it using Jesus’ teachings to clarify. It doesn’t work to put forward pat justifications for those passages that offend modern sensibilities. Our generation will not allow it. It is important to use a Jesus-filter to work through and find rational alternate explanations. My example of 1 Samuel chapter 15 provides one illustration as to how this might be done. I am not the first to treat the Old Testament this way; the early church fathers pioneered the approach. We are in their debt.
Thanks for listening,secondlooknow.com
Hi Dan,
Thank you!
This topic is one that really needs consideration.
How many times have we read or heard that “GOD said… or says..” to do “this act or that act”, just as Samuel did.. and the act recommended is one of violence and even murder.
I am sure when Jesus’ disciples tried to call down fire from Heaven, destruction is what they had in mind.
And Jesus rebuked them, saying they did not know of which what spirit they were acting. And neither do we when we act like that.
When American Christians, soldiers, men and women, church leaders, etc ( real or self-deceived) perpetrated attempted genocide of ALL Indigenous families in this nation, America, they very nearly succeeded.
The number of Indigenous survivors was from 1 1/2 to 2% remaining in the entire nation of America.
But those so-called “Christ ones” continued their quest.
“Christian ” Residential Schools then were established as the final step towards annihilation of The People… ghastly , inexcusable things have been and are done in the Name of the Christ.
Scriptures declaring for the destruction of “the pagans” are those like Samuel’s. What happened to the entire people group of Indigenous Families was and is called Manifest Destiny.
And so it was and is.
“God the Father is just like Jesus.”
I like this because it’s so simple and so true.
The following out of it as we try to understand the ancient stories might seem complicated, but when we come back to this simple truth, they do make sense.
Thank you!
Happy New Year!
“Yankees killed the Dodgers.”
Before or after they left Brooklyn?
My bias shows; I grew up in NY. The Dodgers seemed to do better after they left.
Wow, thanks Dan for the revelation that you have written down.
It reveals to us the true nature of God, God’s nature is that God is love and His character is that He changes not.
When studying the Old Testament we should do it by putting on the lenses of the New Testament.
Blessings Dan, am a student learning from you.
Thank you Hannington for your comment.